Criteria for sustainably implementing Project Management Offices (PMOS) in Federal Institutions of Higher Education (FIHES)

Many areas have emerged that specifically seek to plan and manage projects in educational institutions to create and achieve their established strategic planning objectives. This study sought to identify criteria for sustainably implementing Project Management Offices (PMOs) in Federal Institutions of Higher Education (FIHE). Actions were established related to: (a) identifying Brazilian FIHEs that have implemented PMOs; (b) surveying the macro steps used at these institutions for implementing PMOs, and the software and methodologies they used to do this; c) listing the main PMO attributions implemented at the FIHEs, and finally (d) assessing what these institutions think are the best PMO practices to sustainably replicate and implement PMOs at other institutions. We identified FIHEs that had implemented PMOs, along with the best practices and lessons learned that impacted sustainable growth for future PMOs using a survey. We also presented the main steps used by some institutions to structure the implementation and consolidate PMOs within institutional environments. The results contribute to reducing the knowledge gap on implementing PMOs in FIHEs and can direct further research in this area.

A Project Management Office (PMO) is a structure within an organization that standardizes governance processes related to projects and facilitates sharing methodologies, tools, and resources (PMBOK, 2017).PMOs establish flexible, dynamic, and versatile departments that link strategic intentions with projects to ensure that results are satisfactorily achieved, and direct organizations towards achieving better performance (Darling & Whitty, 2016).PMOs contribute and deliver value in different ways, e.g., taking responsibility for carrying out projects (Linde & Steyn, 2016) or acting in public institutions, where PMOs add value, agility, and practicality to public affairs, especially in delivering goods or services with desirable quality standards (Pinto, 2016).
Organizational Project Management (OPM) is related to carrying out strategies and providing a framework that enables organizations to consistently and predictably carry out organizational strategies, resulting in better performance, better results, and sustainable competitive advantages (PMI, 2017).This study seeks to answer the following research question: Which criteria should be taken into consideration when implementing PMOs in FIHEs to make this process more sustainable, while also considering lessons learned from other institutions during their own PMO implementation experiences?
"Sustainable" is defined here as achieving consistent, long-lasting results, with conditions suitable for maintaining or preserving these results until improvements can be implemented.
Based on the research question, our objective was to identify criteria for sustainably implementing Project Management Offices (PMOs) in FIHEs and the specific objectives are as follows: (a) Identify Brazilian FIHEs that have implemented PMOs; (b) Survey the macro steps used by these institutions for implementing PMOs, and the software programs and methodologies they used; (c) List the main attributions of the PMOs implemented at the FIHEs, and (d) assess what these institutions think are the best PMO practices, so these can be sustainably replicated and implemented at other institutions.
The research was conducted using a survey, and this article is structured as follows: The first section presents the introduction, containing the research question and the objectives.The second section details the theoretical framework.The third section outlines the methodological procedures.The fourth section gives a discussion of the results.Last, the fifth section gives the research implications and final considerations.
One main function of a PMO is to provide support to an institution in managing its projects, or completely and directly take on this responsibility.It has the same management domain as functional managers and strategically acts in the highest sector of an institution, sharing all decision-making power (Lima, Almeida, & Maia, 2015).PMOs contribute and deliver value in different ways, e.g., taking on responsibility for carrying out projects (Linde & Steyn, 2016).
A PMO Value Ring is one of the most widely used tools for creating, evaluating, managing to structure, and implementing PMOs (2021), based on benchmarking, and professional expertise from different countries.According to Pinto (2016), this tool is flexible in meeting organizational needs, aligns contributions from a strategic standpoint, and focuses on perceived value, which is essential for consolidating PMOs.The PMO Value Ring is supported by a PMO Value Ring software program, available from the PMO Global Alliance website (https://www.pmoga.world/pmovr).It contains a list of the most frequent PMO functions, which are highlighted in Table 2.Each PMO customer can express their needs in terms of expected benefits, since PMO functions need to generate value for customers and companies, which in this study are the top management and institutions, respectively.This step helps define priority functions that a PMO offers, taking expected customer benefits into account.A cause and effect relationship was established between functions and benefits, identifying the probabilities of certain expected benefits from each PMO function (PMO Global Alliance, 2015).
PMOs created to support project managers, teams, and management levels in functional and strategic issues across the organization constitute advancements in project management.The mission is to preserve an integrated vision of strategic planning throughout the value chain.According to this understanding, it is interesting to consider the advantages of implementing PMOs, since their activities can be diversified.
The initial phase of PMO implementation is the most important phase since the correct type of office needs to be chosen considering that the PMO will need to account for offering functions that meet institutional needs.Some PMO modalities and their respective definitions are shown in Table 3. Agile Project Management Offices (APMO) should also be mentioned.According to Cruz (2016, p. 122), "an APMO follows agile concepts and methods, keeping existing agile values and principles alive in both the agile manifesto and in methods and frameworks that reinforce the structured APMO foundation", in addition to meeting one or more characteristics (Table 2).
Institutions that are planning on implementing PMO must draft good organizational structural diagrams to decide on the type of PMO they will implement.They need to gather information on organizational managerial behavior, since this occurs in the functional sector (intermediate) until reaching the base of the pyramid, i.e., the operational sectors.Usually, institutions are divided into departments, and fall under the coordination of a peak structure, which is the general director in most cases, where the whole is divided into parts (Lima, Almeida, & Maia, 2015).

Implementing PMOs in FIHEs
Since the 1990s, trends in implementing PMOs at public and private institutions have been used as alternatives for modernization to promote efficiency in providing services.According to Medeiros et al. (2017), project management practices contribute to improving organizations, highlighting that FIHEs have sought to implement PMOs to optimize their results.According to this author, 50% of all public institutions involved in direct administration, and 67% involved in indirect administration have already implemented this structure, or similar structures, based on data from a PM survey released in 2014 on public institutions in general, constituting a significant increase in this practice.
FIHEs are complex organizations, and performance is measured in terms of teaching, research, and extension activities (Marcovitch, et al., 2017).Organizational management needs to be adequately aligned with academic and administrative complexity arising from multiple interests, objectives, and specific activities performed in different areas of knowledge.
At FIHEs, strategic approaches are carried out using the Institutional Development Plan (IDP) (Decree nº 9.235/2017) as a legal requirement.The IDP accounts for structures set forth to comply with institutionalized policies or programs, according to the academic organization of the institution.Implementing a PMO needs to be timely for the institution, and must be aligned with teaching, research, extension, and management activities.
It is noteworthy that some FIHEs have units that are accredited by the Brazilian Company for Research and Industrial Innovation (Embrapii), which according to the Ministry of Education (MEC, 2021), is a private non-profit institution, and its main mission is to contribute to developing innovation and competitiveness among Brazilian industries by meeting innovation demands in the productive sector.This institution accomplishes its objectives via projects, and it has PMOs at some organizational structures defined for these units.
A survey carried out by Moura and Serafim (2019), on Brazilian Federal Universities, sought to objectively quantify the existence of structured Project Management Offices that had been implemented at institutions, and 10 universities stated that they had PMOs.The results collected by this study are presented in Table 4.We observed that implementing PMOs in Brazilian FIHEs is not a trend yet, as only a few isolated institutions have systematically adopted this practice.It is known that implementing PMOs at institutions that have existed for decades is very challenging.Paradigm shifts constitute one of the most impacting success points when PMOs are implemented (ABPMP, 2013).According to Arruda (2017), at the beginning of implementing PMOs, and even before they are implemented, institutions must have a specified direction, even if adjustments will eventually be needed.Starting with planning, institutions must understand where they want to be at the end of the year.

Classification of this study
According to Prodanov and Freitas (2013), research approaches and methods can be classified relative to their nature, objectives, technical procedures, and approaches to problems.This study is classified as a quantitative approach, while the objectives are exploratory, and the technical procedure is a survey.Table 5 gives some definitions from different authors on these classifications.

Research Classification Definition
Quantitative Research Quantitative research results can be quantified (Fonseca, 2002).Quantitative research focuses on a few concepts and starts by considering preconceived ideas (Polit et al., 2004).Quantitative research requires using statistical resources and techniques, like percentage, mean, mode, median, standard deviation, correlation coefficients, regression analysis, etc. (Prodanov & Freitas, 2013).

Exploratory Research
Exploratory research seeks to foster familiarity with problems, make them more explicit, or build hypotheses (Gil, 1991).Exploratory research is used in cases when problems need to be defined with greater precision (Malhota, 2001).
Exploratory research studies initially start with broader research processes, which clarify and define the nature of problems and generate more information that can be used by future studies (Zikmund, 2000).

Surveys
Surveys are used in exploratory and descriptive research (Fonseca, 2002).Surveys seek to understand the behavior of individuals by clearly and directly questioning them (Santos, 2000).In general, researchers proceed by requesting information from a significant group of people on the problem that is being studied to then draw conclusions corresponding to the collected data, using quantitative analysis (Prodanov & Freitas, 2013).

Source:
The authors of this study (2022).
Seven steps were established, specified by Bryman and Bell (2011), to carry out survey research, which is listed as follows: a) create the conceptual structure (including objectives and the object of study); b) define the population that will be studied; c) prepare the questionnaire; d) carry out a pilot test; e) apply the questionnaire; f) analyze the data and establish information for replication.
We will present how we developed the survey to better understand the methodological flow of this study.

Developing the survey
The object of study includes all FIHEs registered with the Ministry of Education (MEC), consisting of Federal Institutes and Universities, i.e., a non-probabilistic sample.University data were obtained from government websites (https://emec.mec.gov.br/), which contained the names of the institutions and where they are located, among other information.
After selecting the object of study, a questionnaire was created and validated by specialists in Project Management, and specialists in implementing PMOs.To validate the questionnaire, an initial version of the questionnaire was sent to professionals, to be answered and analyzed to validate whether the questionnaire would achieve its purpose.The recommendations given by the experts were taken into consideration.We used Google Forms to send the questionnaires online.The questionnaires were sent to 100 FIHEs listed on the Transparency Portal, according to the Access to Information Law (LAI).Institutions were given 20 days to respond, and times could be extended up to an additional 10 days.Figure 1 shows the methodological flow research for better understanding.The survey took place between March and April 2021.We should note that, according to Floyd and Fowler (2011), the response rate must be above 20% of the selected sample when applying a questionnaire online, i.e., for this study we needed 21 responses from the 100 FIHEs.

4.
Results and discussions

General analysis
This section presents the results of the survey applied to the FIHEs.100 questionnaires were sent out, and 64 were completed, resulting in a response rate of 64%.The first question in the questionnaire helped us identify the number of institutions with implemented PMOs in their organizations.The answers to the first question are given in Graph 1.

Graph 1. Level of implemented PMOs in FIHEs
Source: The authors of this study (2022).
Of the 64 institutions that responded to the survey, 11 stated that they had PMOs (17%), while 53 institutions stated that they did not have PMOs (83%).It should be noted that they were asked about PMOs that supported institutional administrative activities on a whole, and not isolated PMOs.We found that PMO implementation at FIHEs is still not a common practice.Table 6 lists the institutions that had PMOs.Comparing the FIHEs with PMOs in Table 4, and referencing a study by Moura and Serafim (2019), on Federal Universities, we see that some Universities had previously stated that they had PMOs, yet did not comment.This was the case for UFCA, UFES, UFFS, UNILA, UNIPAMPA, and UFPR, all of which received questionnaires.
Regarding the regions where the FIHEs are located, we can see that the Northeastern and Northern regions have the most PMOs, relative to the South, which has only one PMO.This is detailed in Graph 2, along with total FIHEs per region.After this survey we analyzed aspects related to implementing PMOs, the methodologies used to do this, and the criteria -based on lessons learned during the processes -that promote sustainably implementing PMOs, so we could answer our research question.

Analyzing implementing PMOs in FIHEs
Aspects related to the PMO implementation stage will be presented for the 11 institutions that stated that they had PMOs, considering points like the reason for implementing the PMO, the duration time (from planning to completion), and the steps for building the PMO.
There are many ways of structuring a PMO, but the first step is associated with deciding whether to have a PMO at the institution or not.This is connected with the expectations that organizations will develop, considering the prerogatives and solutions that PMOs are expected to offer (Abe & Carvalho, 2005).It is recognized that the process of implementing a PMO starts with a decision.According to the respondents, decisions were mostly taken based on a direct request from the Dean, and approvals from councils (54%), or because this had already been outlined by the institution's strategic plan (46%).
According to Carvalho and Piscopo (2014), the steps for implementing a PMO are called "group actions", which are: decisions; pre-structuring; structuring; execution, evaluation, and continuous improvements.Patel et al. (2012), give a process for implementing PMOs according to three major steps, with several sub-steps, which are: Planning, Implementing, and Management.Table 7 shows how the PMO implementation process was structured at the FIHEs that stated that they had PMOs.There was a separate project and a process management initiative from the IT department.After an experimentation period, and after persuading senior management, using accountability and results, we decided to create a specific sector for this purpose, with only one public servant initially, which was the former IT director.We noted that there are no standards for implementing PMOs, but there are similarities.Each FIHE planned and implemented PMOs according to their needs and their available resources.This is also reflected in the amount of time it took to implement the PMOs, which ranged from 2 months to 3 years.
De Souza and Evaristo (2006) raised a relevant question on PMOs, that can help understand the "lack of standards".According to the authors, there is no universal definition for a PMO model, so the implementation must take individualities, structure diversification, size, and functions into account, according to the organizational requirements.Another line of argument was defended by Dai and Wells (2004), who offered another line of reasoning where PMOs are structured so that they undergo constant changes to their configurations, because the organizational project needs also change frequently.
4.3.Project management methodologies and software used by the FIHEs at the PMOs PMOs are often responsible for forming a set of norms and rules that reflect an institution's methodologies for managing projects to standardize processes (Aubry & Hobbs, 2008).This is an essential concept that must adopt coherent methodologies and software programs, making it possible to create and connect people via information.Table 8 shows the responses of the institutions regarding this topic.Regarding software, the institutions have been using free software, e.g., Trello and Redmine, and paid software, e.g., GPWeb.There was also one specific case of software development, e.g., SUAP, which was developed by IFRN and adapted according to the needs of the institution where it will be installed.The FIHEs that stated that they did not use any software programs or methodologies, did so mainly because they are in the process of defining their processes.
The PMO Value Ring (2021), is a methodology for creating or restructuring PMOs, based on benchmarking and professional expertise from different countries.It is flexible concerning organizational needs, aligns contributions from a strategic standpoint, and focuses on perceived value, which is essential for consolidating any PMO (Pinto, 2016).32 PMO attributions were listed in the questionnaire sent to the FIHEs based on this methodology, and Keeling and Branco (2019).Further responses could be added by the respondents.Graph 4 shows the attributions as reported by the respondents.We can see that the FIHEs with implemented PMOs have different attributions and structures.This corroborates Cruz (2016, p. 59), who stated that "there are no defined standards for PMOs, and PMOs can take on many forms, depending on the degree of control and influence they exert on organizational projects".
We observed that actions like supporting project planning, and developing professionals skills, were the most employed activities at most PMOs.In addition to these practices, the Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre (UFCSPA) reported that it supports administrative management research projects and fundraising, while the Federal University of Pará (UFPA) stated that it supported project coordinators in processes for signing Decentralized Execution Terms (TEDs), i.e., raising funds for projects submitted by the coordinators, which is a specific PMO activity, and the Educational, Professional, Scientific, and Technological Federal Institute of Pará (IFPA) stated that it is still finalizing its scope, and reported that its activities are still changing.

Criteria for sustainably implementing PMOs
According to Sereda (2015), archiving and structurally sharing knowledge from studies on failures and successes, leads to organizational excellence, and for this, knowledge management must be methodical, planned, and relevant.Table 9 gives a list of learning acquired by FIHEs, that according to respondents, allows for sustainably implementing PMOs.

UFSB
Adopting integrated project guidelines is fundamental for success, along with involving all interested parties in all developmental stages, starting with the preliminary study and extending to project implementation, along with reducing deadlines and costs for carrying out and maintaining the PMOs.

UTFPR
The main developmental points are: Business Process Mapping / Process Optimization / Process Portfolio Management / Business Area Demand Analysis / Risk Management / Knowledge Base Process Management / Electronic Information System Administration -SEI / Meeting demands via an Electronic Information System -SEI / make new modules available within the Electronic Information System -SEI / Manage User Support Groups (SEI Facilitators) / Systems Management "Registration Commissions" / Support for Digital Transformations

UFRN
It is complicated to implement a merely normative PMO within the university structure.Strategic PMO project management is required.All kinds of projects should be taken up when building learning offices.It is important that the PMO take risks on short-term projects, but considering the whole university scope to help sustainability.It is important to have some axis projects that are expertise office, but not get stuck in it.UFCSPA Define and align the PMO scope with strategic planning.Identify qualified people for the team.

IFF
We are still in the initial phases of implementation.
IFGoiano As was mentioned earlier, the PMO is still being implemented.Actions so far have aimed to change organizational culture, highlighting the importance of planning.We cannot list lessons learned.UFT Optimize the projects, develop professional skills, promote quality deliveries.
UFMT Apply a methodology for selecting and prioritizing PMO services.
IFPA Top management decision.Offer training courses.Search for a representative with experience in management.Receive support from senior management for actions that impact changes to the organization's routines.The main challenge is inserting "new activities" into the organization's dayto-day management.

UFMA
We are still in the initial phases of implementing continuous improvements.

Source:
The authors of this study (2022).
Table 9 specifies that the most cited action was related to expanding a culture of project management, and transforming the organization's culture.To help with this, the PMO Value Ring methodology suggests that organizations need to see their PMOs as being "service providers", with "clients" and "stakeholders", so the best way to generate value, and the best way for perceiving value, is meeting the expectations of the "stakeholders" (Pinto, 2019).There need to be joint efforts if this is to work, from both top management and public servant.One institution that is still implementing a PMO stated that all actions so far are aimed at changing the organizational culture, emphasizing the importance of including this in the implementation planning phase.Furthermore, they stated that involvement from all stakeholders, at all developmental stages, is crucial for success, focusing on organizational needs, and showing that cultural changes will be beneficial.
Another point mentioned by some FIHEs was related to defining the PMO scope and having adequate structures for defining scopes, e.g., an appropriate number of public servants for performing prioritized activities.Established directions are also necessary, even if adjustments may eventually need to be made.They also mentioned the importance of receiving support from senior management, which impacts changing organizational routines, given the challenges associated with inserting new activities into day-to-day management practices.This reinforces what was found in literature, like a strategic PMO Value Ring vision (2021), where top management alignment with PMO objectives and functions is a key success point.
Respondents also mentioned technical development professionals who would work at the PMO.They highlighted the importance of investing and seeking to develop teams in different areas, and not merely in the project and process management areas.One can also look for employees outside the institution who have experience in project management.
Respondents also cited the importance of taking risks in short-term projects, that reach the institution as a whole, thereby expanding the project management culture.If professionals are not aware of the work goals, and do not understand the value, projects will hardly be able to be performed, or seen by top management.We noticed the importance of defining maturity, and giving it purpose and leveled goals.PMOs need to develop professionals, and senior management needs to be reminded of the expected PMO benefits, starting at the planning stage.Without understanding the potential benefits, it does not matter how technical the activities being carried out are, as they may not be robust enough to act on needed organizational changes.

Conclusions
Given the specific objectives established in this study, and using the survey, we identified Brazilian FIHEs that have implemented PMOs, surveyed the macro steps used at these institutions for implementing PMOs, along with the software programs and methodologies that they used.We also listed the main implemented PMO attributions at the FIHEs to assess what these institutions thought were the best practices for this process so this could be replicated by other institutions and provide advancements in terms of sustainably implementing PMOs.Upon fulfilling the specific objectives that we established, we were then able to achieve our proposed general objectives for identifying the PMOs sustainability criteria at FIHEs.
The results indicated that only 11 institutions (17%) out of the 64 FIHEs that responded to the survey, had implemented PMOs.This indicates that PMO implementation is not yet consolidated at FIHEs, and this constitutes a research opportunity.
We found that few employees were involved in PMOs, which could limit some institutions in building a sector with adequate training and profiles for this purpose.Although this is not entirely an obstacle, it is worth drawing attention to, because generally a PMO must contain professionals with project management training and skills.
The literature analysis showed that the necessary requirements for sustainably implementing a PMO include the supporting role of senior management, and management from other interested parties.This corroborates the opinions of the respondents when asked about lessons learned during the implementing process.They mainly mentioned alignment and support with/from senior management.Other criteria for sustainably implementing PMO include training professionals.PMOs may not be able to stay aligned with the scope without qualified public servants to carry out project management.Motivating other sectors within the organization could be an important criterion when consolidating the PMO.Adequate planning can help guide professionals who will work at the PMO, at least for the first year of operations, and this will keep the PMO from losing focus of its objectives.
Regarding the best practices for implementing PMOs, in addition to the best practices cited by respondents, we asked an expert in the area about this, and this professional listed important aspects like not following a standardized PMO model, since any model used must be adapted to expectations and needs senior management.A PMO must be restructured whenever there is the need to do so, and normally, strategic and business model changes require quick changes to PMO performance.Another important aspect reiterated by this specialist was offering basic training to project management technical teams, since these professionals can help management activities.Additionally, this professional highlighted projects with selfmanaging teams, where management is not centralized to a single manager.Regarding project management tools/software, this professional referenced alternatives like Atlassian (Jira, Bitbucket, Confluence), Sharepoint, MS Project, and traditional methods based on PMBOK, or Agile Methods based on Scrum, Kanban, TDD, and Continuous Integrations.
Implementing PMOs in organizational environments has already been consolidated to achieve results.However, within the scope of FIHEs, where resources come from the government, in addition to their agreements, results must be aligned with the principle of public sector efficiency, by involving, for example, best use practices for financial resources, human resources, and physical resources.This definition for using resources is outlined by Institutional Strategic Planning (PEI) and is based on policies defined for teaching, research, extension, and administration activities, tracing institutional objectives and goals, which are most often carried out by projects.Also, this could be a better way of adapting to possible budget constraints without compromising planned projects, since PMOs can facilitate sharing methodologies, tools, and resources.These are relevant points that can justify implementing PMOs in FIHEs.It is noteworthy that all the FIHEs have an Administrative Dean, and that PMO functions are often incorporated with the Administrative Dean, even if this is done informally.Managers at each institution need to assess the real need for PMOs and the scopes that will be defined since this can vary greatly.
Finally, for future work we suggest that researchers study the organizational structures (organizational charts) of PMOs, and how these structures relate to formal FIHEs structures.Also, practical studies could be performed, like studies resulting from action research, to monitor implementing PMOs in FIHEs using the criteria and lessons learned presented here, which were important contributions to this study.Zikmund, W. G. (2000).Business research methods.ed.Fort Worth, TX: Dryden.

Graph 2 .
Total FIHEs vs. FIHEs with PMOs per region Source: The authors of this study (2022).
servants / Forecast the Strategic Planning / Appoint responsible public servants / Prepare the Work Plan / Carry out and evaluate Actions.

FIHE
The authors of this study (2022).

Table 1 .
Services performed by PMOs

Table 2 .
PMO functions according to the PMO Value Ring

Table 3 . Classification of types of PMOs Author Type Main Characteristics
SupportAdvisory role: provides models, practical improvements, training, information, and lessons learned (library).Low level of control.Controller Control using various means, adopt project management structures or methodologies.Moderate level of control.DirectorCompletely takes on PMI.High level of control.Source:Patah and Vimercati (2016).

Table 9 .
Criteria for sustainably implementing PMOs in FIHE FIHE Criteria for sustainably implementing PMOs in FIHEs UFPA It is important to clearly define the scope and have structures that are aligned with the scope.